And I'll stand in awe of YouThat chorus soars. "I'll stand in awe of You." It carries a sense of the grandeur and ... well ... awe of God. "Awe" ... that emotion that combines veneration and wonder and dread, inspired by overwhelming greatness. That's ... the right response. That's the only reasonable response. Veneration, wonder, and ... yes ... dread. Perfect.
Yes, I'll stand in awe of You
And I'll let my words be few
Jesus, I am so in love with You.
Then there's that last line. "Jesus, I am so in love with You." Here's when words become important. Love is a choice ... a stable, unconditional attachment. "In love," on the other hand, is an intense romantic feeling. Love can be platonic. "In love" includes romantic attraction and desire. It is possible to keep the pledge to love someone "til death do us part," but "in love" is an emotion that no one can control and, therefore, promise. So ... is being "in love with Jesus" a good thing? Insofar as feeling warmly toward Jesus is good, I suppose so. But that's not the command. When Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14;15), He wasn't talking about a warm feeling. When He said loving God was the highest commandment (Mark 12:28-31), He wasn't talking about a warm feeling.
I'm all in favor of awe. It's perfectly appropriate and, in fact, unavoidable if you get a real glimpse of God. I'm absolutely in favor of loving God. It's commanded and it's important. Being in love with Him? Not so much. It's an emotional thing, unsustainable, and unreliable. What He wants is our whole selves, not a warm feeling. Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love Me?" (John 21:15-17). He didn't ask, "Are you in love with Me?" Which are you?
20 comments:
It's kinda creepy, actually.
I'm not familiar with the song, but I guess a good alternative would be "Jesus, I love you so much"? But I'm not sure about the melody if it would fit. Not to take away from your point about love and in love (I fully agree), but it seems sometimes difficult to be very precise in music. Not to say I don't do it all the time, but sometimes I wonder about how far my need for theological accuracy should be applied to music. In our day, music is all about the feeling. We even argue that the singing before the sermon is meant to put us in a mental and emotional state of worship. So would it be so wrong, in a song, to engender those feelings of love, as long as we don't rest our faith on those feelings?
I agree that it is “creepy”--for everyone, male or female!
In the systematic Christian theology, based on Scripture, to which I subscribe, I have seen no support for being “in love” with Jesus, the Son of God and Lord and Savior of the world. Although Jesus was a man, He was/is not a potential romantic partner in any way, shape, or form; in fact, the notion of “being in love with Jesus” is blasphemous to my mind.
I am chagrined to admit that I have a book in my home library titled, Falling in Love with Jesus: Abandoning Yourself to the Greatest Romance of Your Life, by Dee Brestin and Kathy Troccoli. It was a gift from a friend (so I have not discarded it), and I did read it (many years ago), finding it at least better than, say, something from Ann Voskamp or her ilk). The blurb on the back cover includes these words:
“Using humor, contemporary love songs, real-life stories, and solid Biblical teaching, Dee and Kathy help women discover a life-changing intimacy with Jesus. No matter your age or marital status, you are His bride, the object of His affection. The secret to an abundant life lies not in ten steps, but in developing a deep love relationship with Jesus, abandoning yourself to the greatest romance of your life!”
That blurb contains several issues for me: (1) the fact that “solid Biblical teaching” comes last in the listing, rather than first; (2) that lyrics from secular, romantic “love songs” meshed seamlessly with much of the book’s contents; and (3) the fact that this book is marketed to women (mistermed “His bride”--a designation for the Church, not individual women)--as if women can rightly have a romantic relationship with Jesus (while men by nature probably can’t). If a certain heart attitude towards Jesus is proper for women to have, then it would be proper for men as well. Clearly this sentiment is not right for anyone (even if Matt Redman sang it with no hesitations).
P.S. After checking the full lyrics of the song you reference, I see no substance there at all. Thus his words could have been even fewer--as in not at all--to my mind. No, Jesus is not my boyfriend--nor yours, Matt.
David, I tend to give music (poetry) some "poetic license," like you. I don't like heresy in poetry form. This doesn't rise to the level of heresy. It's just that so many are so confused about important things like "love" and I feel the need to call attention to it.
Lorna, I've noted (in conversation) in the past that it's sad how too many churches hire good musicians rather than musically-inclined theologians to lead worship. For entertainment purposes, I give some leeway, but I'm still highly sensitive to lyrics regardless.
Actually, Stan, I was not considering those song lyrics from a corporate worship standpoint at all but rather was thinking about the notion of “being in love with Jesus” from a more general theological aspect. (I saw more of a focus by you on the idea rather than the song.) Personally, I would not sing that song in either personal nor corporate worship. (As you might suspect, I’m as intolerant of weak worship song lyrics as of poorly written theology books. :)
P.S. I went a bit long in my comment above because the idea of “being in love with Jesus” might resonate with women more than with men, and I wanted to be very clear--as a woman--that I am certain that it’s entirely improper for either gender, as I remarked. Also, it should be clear from my comment that I critique the books I read for edification as stringently as I would a sermon, magazine article, blog post, song, etc.
I have to disagree with your revultion to being in love with Jesus or that it is unbiblical. I mean, we have an entire book of the Bible (Song of Solomon) dedicated to being in love, which has historically been treated as a reflection of the love between Jesus and His bride, the Church. Certainly, there is a danger if we only rely on this feeling of being in love, but if we never feel love for Christ, do we actually love Him? It seems to me, Stan's point wasn't that love feelings are bad, only that they shouldn't be the basis for truth.
David, Assuming your comment was directed to me, I will clarify that of course unbridled love for Jesus is fully warranted, and expressing it is natural and proper. However, I did see the difference that Stan was highlighting between loving Jesus and being in love with Jesus, the latter of which has a definite connotation of romantic, infatuation-type of emotion. (We use both terms when speaking of human relationships but not usually interchangeably.) I think that the Song of Solomon is graphically romantic/sexual because the “stars” of the narrative are a human couple, and that is how committed human adults express their truest love, but I would not agree that those exact demonstrations of love translate to the spiritual relationship that is Christ and His bride.
Should we not be infatuated with Jesus? Certainly we should be more than infatuated, but shouldn't our love for Him include in love with Him? I'm not arguing that there is some sexual connection in that love, but sex is supposed to be an expression of love. And the pleasure we feel in sex with our loving partner will pale in comparison to the pleasure we will feel (should feel?) with Jesus, which seems to be the point of Song of Solomon. It is an image of what relationship with Christ will be.
I recall that Stan posted about that very connection in the not-too-distant past (and I also remember that I was the only brave soul to comment on that post!). In any case, I did not mean to dictate to anyone else what their love for Jesus should be like. I concurred with the distinction Stan was making in this post (and you indicated in your first comment at the top that you did as well). I am careful personally to avoid the “Jesus is my boyfriend” way of thinking. (This sensitivity is no doubt heightened by memories from my Catholic youth when, during our “First Holy Communion” rite, we were dressed up like little child brides and grooms and supposedly led into a symbolic spiritual marriage to Jesus Christ.) I do apologize if my strong stance was overbearing in any way.
Don't get me wrong, I abhor the "Jesus is my boyfriend" position. I just think there is room for the "warm feelings" type of love AND the "love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength" kind of love. It seemed like you were saying that there's no place in Scripture that indicates we should have both types. And I agree that we need to avoid the danger of relying on those feelings, just not to the point of not even having them.
I appreciate your clarification. Where you said, “It seemed like you were saying that there's no place in Scripture that indicates we should have both types [of love],” I will point out that I wrote that Scripture does not support being “in love” with Jesus (not that we would not have “warm feelings” for our Savior). Again, this is seeing a distinction between “love” and “being in love.” Perhaps it’s merely semantics for you, and you are comfortable with that wording, while others of us see impropriety (even “creepiness”) in any romantic thoughts towards God, even while attributing ultimate devotion and adoration towards Him. (I am sure you are aware of how the Church’s spiritual intimacy with God has been taken to deviant extremes, with individuals and/or groups partaking in all manner of depraved behavior, based on a misunderstanding of “intercourse with God” (of which Stan has written in the past as well).
By the way, the post from Stan I mentioned in my last comment--about the connection between human physical love and “the mysterious union of Christ with the Church” (to use Stan’s phrasing)--was dated 11/26/24 (“Let's Talk About Sex”), if you want to reread it.
David, just an afterthought: I noticed that you didn’t express directly to Stan the objections that you shared with me, even though he stated the same thoughts (i.e. we should love Jesus but are not “in love with” Him), to which I concurred. Instead, your response to his post focused on the song lyrics in a worship context rather than the main point of his post. I am always ready and willing to clarify anything I say in a comment (as I assume Stan is as well), so I am rather curious.
I responded to you and not Stan because I saw nothing in what Stan said indicating that emotion is separate from love completely. You made the claim that there is no indication in Scripture that we should have feelings of love, except we do. There certainly should be more than feelings, but if your relationship with Christ doesn't include feelings of love at times, it raises concerns. Just because there are people that take doctrines too far doesn't mean the core is to be avoided completely. People twist Scripture all the time, but that doesn't make Scripture wrong. If people have twisted the meaning of loving God, it doesn't mean loving God is wrong. To me, Stan's point wasn't that "in love" should never be involved in our love of God, only that it shouldn't be the basis for our relationship with Him, because our feelings are notoriously fickle.
It seems that you and I understood Stan’s words/thoughts differently. I must also conclude that you are not comprehending my words/thoughts (even after my clarifications), because you have misquoted me yet again. Finally, since I see contradictions in your own string of comments, I’m afraid I can’t completely follow your words/thoughts, either.
At this point, all I can say is that I am sorry that you didn’t like my comment.
Actually, Lorna, I specifically said, "Is being 'in love with Jesus' a good thing? Insofar as feeling warmly toward Jesus is good, I suppose so." Emotions toward God aren't bad. Choosing to love Him is commanded. My only point. (Followed by "I Don't Second That Emotion" in which i denied the superiority of feelings over the mind and the will.) I've always held that love is a choice, and that the feelings we associate with love are a natural outcome of that love we choose to give.
Not trying to continue the argument, but for my education and correction, where was I self-contradictory? That is certainly something I don't want to have in my thinking (we sometimes do it without noticing) and appreciate being called out for it. Thank you.
Yes, you said that first line--among other things, which I took as a whole, culminating in your final paragraph. Since “I suppose so” indicates “a sense of hesitation, uncertainty, or reluctant agreement,” it led smoothly to de-emphasizing “being in love with Jesus” (“He wasn’t talking about a warm feeling” and “Being in love with Him? Not so much”). That is where my original comment went, and I never disparaged “warm feelings” or emotions for God (which would be ludicrous) but merely agreed with your mention that “in love” had romantic connotations (as I reiterated to David several times). Frankly, I don’t understand there being an issue with anything I said in comments at this post.
Post a Comment